Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I definitely got the impression Zod was doing that so Superman would kill him. Either he'd given up (unlikely) or wanted to teach Superman some lesson.

I enjoyed the movie, but the destruction at the end was so awesome so as to be almost cartoony. How many city blocks were flattened? How many skyscrapers collapsed? There had to be thousands upon thousands of deaths. That was a little much.

A company that are disaster experts estimated "129,000 people would be confirmed killed, nearly a million would be injured, and over a quarter of a million would still be missing." and $700bn worth of damage.

__________________
“Wisdom comes from experience. Experience is often a result of lack of wisdom.”
― Terry Pratchett

Exactly so. There can be a Kara/Supergirl, but there can't be a "Superman's cousin" in the same sense that she exists in the comics. Assuming that Zor-El and Alura existed, they didn't have a natural daughter.

Exactly so. There can be a Kara/Supergirl, but there can't be a "Superman's cousin" in the same sense that she exists in the comics. Assuming that Zor-El and Alura existed, they didn't have a natural daughter.

There's a "Man of Steel" prequel comic that focuses on Kara.

Also in the movie there's a scene that lingers for awhile on a escape pod

Minor amusement: The Kryptonians take direct strafing from the 30mm cannons of a flight of Thunderbolt IIs, and aren't even scratched. At which point, the soldiers decide to land and confront them with assault rifles and handguns.

Quite liked the movie, overall.

__________________
"I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are!"

I don't think it's even meant to be ambiguous. Superman is screaming for him to stop and Zod outright says that he never will stop trying to kill, pretty much forcing Superman to stop him.

Yeah that's how it appeared to me as well. Obviously Zod could have easily sliced that family in two with his heat vision, but he realized he was beaten and had no more purpose left with Krypton gone, and so he put Superman in a place where he had no choice but to kill him.

Very good movie. Not too much I can complain about. The complete destruction of Metropolis was a bit much, but I guess that's gonna happen when you have two Kryptonians going at it. Not really a complaint, but I was very surprised by Supes breaking Zod's neck. I was very disappointed Clark would kill, but he was really backed into a corner, in the context of the story, and had no choice. So I can live with it. I can't place my finger on it, but there was a little something missing. Maybe it dragged a bit during the end battle? I'll have to think about it more. And that's it on the complaints, if you can even call them that.

Anyway, imo, this is easily the best Superman movie ever made and completely craps all over the god awful Donner version and Returns. The guy who played Supes was perfect. How he played Clark was very well done. The fight scenes were sick. No slow-mo!!!! Woo hoo!!! Loved how fast all the Kryptonians were. It was like fight scenes from the animated series, and that is how a Superman movie should be. Lois was a worthwhile character, and much better than I thought she'd be. Zod was badass. I mentioned the destruction of Metropolis and death of Zod as slight nitpicks, but I think those two things will make the sequel even better in regard to Lex Luthor's inevitable grudge against Supes. I really liked all the little twists they did with the backstory, and thought they made the whole movie better.

As I said before, best Superman movie ever by far. Can't wait for the sequel and see how they use Lex. I'm thinking he'll be very close to the animated version that i'm familiar with. I really hope they do some set up for Brainiac too.

I have to admit, I haven't felt this energized after a movie in quite a while. And it's not so much because of the story or the action (both of which I loved); it's just because Cavill inhabited the character so damn well-- and was so damn likeable and human and badass-- that he really makes me want to see more of this Clark and Superman.

Like many, I was a little disappointed in the film. The spectacular CGI and sound effects kept it from being boring, but in terms of character and plot I thought it was nothing groundbreaking. I've been thinking, if we had it to do over again and were rebooting the DC universe anew with a Superman movie, how else could we approach it? I came up with kind of a genre-bending approach that I think could have been great if done right.

In my concept, the protagonist is Lois Lane. She's an investigative reporter. Updating the character for modern times, she probably works for a television news network rather than a daily newspaper. She's gorgeous, which is an asset on television, but also a liability because many people assume that she got where she is on looks alone.

She gets a new colleague, Clark Kent. He's a good reporter and a really nice guy, a man of remarkable kindness and compassion. He quickly falls head over heels for Lois. She greatly respects him as a colleague, a friend and a good person, but she does not return his romantic feelings.

One day a crisis threatens Metropolis and a superhero shows up to save the day. Lois begins investigating this Superman. He has better ways of disguising his face and voice than Christopher Reeve, so it's believable that even when she meets Superman she doesn't recognize him. As she gets to know him better, she falls in love with him. Only after falling in love with him does she figure out that he's Clark Kent. She already has his heart, but in order to make love work she must convince him, and more importantly herself, that she loves him for who he is as a person, and not just for his superpowers.

It's a chick flick crossed with a superhero movie. The superheroics are a subplot and exist to serve the main story, rather than the story being constructed as an excuse for the superheroics. It's a human story about human characters, establishing a human world before introducing an alien superhero into it and focusing on how his presence affects the humans, rather than spending a lot of time on the elaborate backstory of an alien civilization and alien characters who will soon be disposed of. Because it reveals only as much of the alien backstory as the human characters need to know, it provides a lot of flexibility to further develop that backstory to serve the needs of sequels (or to leave it mysterious if it is not needed). In the hands of writers and directors who understand women (or are women), it could be a film that appeals directly to women instead of relying on men to drag women to the theater.

[Story-wise, the concept draws from existing material. Most of what I described up there happens in the Donner films, but those films don't explore these themes, and they tell the story from the perspective of Jor-El and Clark rather than the human characters. Plus they make Clark and Superman similar in appearance but very different in personality, while I suggest the reverse.]

What do you think? Would this have been a good approach for the reboot?

I have to admit, I haven't felt this energized after a movie in quite a while. And it's not so much because of the story or the action (both of which I loved); it's just because Cavill inhabited the character so damn well-- and was so damn likeable and human and badass-- that he really makes me want to see more of this Clark and Superman.

Damn straight.

I want to see more of what the guys who conceived this movie can do with the premise as well.

Like many, I was a little disappointed in the film. The spectacular CGI and sound effects kept it from being boring, but in terms of character and plot I thought it was nothing groundbreaking. I've been thinking, if we had it to do over again and were rebooting the DC universe anew with a Superman movie, how else could we approach it? I came up with kind of a genre-bending approach that I think could have been great if done right.

In my concept, the protagonist is Lois Lane. She's an investigative reporter. Updating the character for modern times, she probably works for a television news network rather than a daily newspaper. She's gorgeous, which is an asset on television, but also a liability because many people assume that she got where she is on looks alone.

She gets a new colleague, Clark Kent. He's a good reporter and a really nice guy, a man of remarkable kindness and compassion. He quickly falls head over heels for Lois. She greatly respects him as a colleague, a friend and a good person, but she does not return his romantic feelings.

One day a crisis threatens Metropolis and a superhero shows up to save the day. Lois begins investigating this Superman. He has better ways of disguising his face and voice than Christopher Reeve, so it's believable that even when she meets Superman she doesn't recognize him. As she gets to know him better, she falls in love with him. Only after falling in love with him does she figure out that he's Clark Kent. She already has his heart, but in order to make love work she must convince him, and more importantly herself, that she loves him for who he is as a person, and not just for his superpowers.

It's a chick flick crossed with a superhero movie. The superheroics are a subplot and exist to serve the main story, rather than the story being constructed as an excuse for the superheroics. It's a human story about human characters, establishing a human world before introducing an alien superhero into it and focusing on how his presence affects the humans, rather than spending a lot of time on the elaborate backstory of an alien civilization and alien characters who will soon be disposed of. Because it reveals only as much of the alien backstory as the human characters need to know, it provides a lot of flexibility to further develop that backstory to serve the needs of sequels (or to leave it mysterious if it is not needed). In the hands of writers and directors who understand women (or are women), it could be a film that appeals directly to women instead of relying on men to drag women to the theater.

[Story-wise, the concept draws from existing material. Most of what I described up there happens in the Donner films, but those films don't explore these themes, and they tell the story from the perspective of Jor-El and Clark rather than the human characters. Plus they make Clark and Superman similar in appearance but very different in personality, while I suggest the reverse.]

What do you think? Would this have been a good approach for the reboot?

I love it! And since it focuses on Lois, and on the romance angle, and the human emotion of the characters, you'd want something for the title like... I don't know, like...

Sorry - I don't mean to be too obnoxious, truly - I just couldn't resist. What you describe was done as a television series in the 1990s, launching the career of Teri Hatcher as Lois. You sound like you may not be aware of that show.

__________________
Don't try to win over the haters; you're not the jackass whisperer. - Scott Straten